If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Obama (Hussein) Crackdown on Free Press

This clown Hussein Obama wants to put government monitors in media outlets. It's clear that he doesn't give two shits about our freedoms or the United States Constitution; with that being said, you guys think there's any chance of mass rioting? Or you think the "sheep trend" will continue and Obama will continue to go untouched?

Last week, Reporters Without Borders dropped America in the World Press Freedom Index 2014 from 33rd to 46th. James Risen of The New York Timesrightly explained, ?I think 2013 will go down in history as the worst year for press freedom in the United States? modern history.? And he?s right. The violation of press freedoms has been egregious under this administration, even as the press fetes President Obama as an honest and effective commander-in-chief.

Selective Access. President Obama has regularly granted special access to reporters who give him preferential coverage. CBS? Steve Kroft admitted as much after a late-2012 interview with the President during which CBS clipped Obama?s explicit refusal to label Benghazi an act of terror: ?(Obama) knows that we?re not going to play ?gotcha? with him, that we?re not going to go out of our way to make him look bad or stupid.?
Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball, got special access for a profile of Obama for Vanity Fair ? but Obama insisted on redlining his quotes. Lewis explained that ?the White House insisted on signing off on the quotes that would appear.? A reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle was threatened for covering an anti-Obama protest. As early as 2008, candidate Obama was kicking dissenters off planes after their outlets endorsed John McCain.Targeting Reporters. In May 2013, the Associated Press dropped the bombshell that the Department of Justice had grabbed phone records for its reporters and editors of the course of two months. Records for 20 telephone lines belonging to the AP and reporters for it were seized between April and May of 2012. Those seizures affected over 100 journalists.
The AP?s President and CEO Gary Pruitt stated, ?There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters.? Fox News? James Rosen was also targeted by the DOJ after running a story about North Korea nuclear development. His State Department visits were tracked and his movements were followed. His parents? phone records were even grabbed.Placing FCC Monitors in Newsrooms. Last week, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai revealed in the pages of the Wall Street Journal that the FCC will be sending employees into media workplaces to monitor how and what stories are chosen. The goal: to ?ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters? concerning ?the process by which stories are selected.?
Pai explained, the FCC ?plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their ?news philosophy? and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.? Reporters will also be asked whether their stories were killed by management in an effort to elicit ?specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decision.? Refusing to Answer Questions. President Obama held fewer press conferences than any president since Reagan. He held ten less than George W. Bush, 54 less than President Clinton, and 64 less than George H.W. Bush. And during those press conferences, questions were largely scripted and chosen. He held just 107 Q&As with the press during his first term, as compared with 354 by George W. Bush. In fact, Obama considers tough questions ?unfair,? as he told Bill O?Reilly during his pre-Super Bowl interview.Refusing to Comply With Freedom of Information Act Requests. According to Bloomberg News, Freedom of Information Act compliance under the Obama administration has been abysmal. Bloomberg reported that ?19 of 20 federal agencies did not comply within 20 days to a request for travel expenses made under the Freedom of Information Act.? Obama?s record on FOIA requests in his first two years was worse than George W. Bush?s in his last three ? an odd pattern, given that administrations tend to tighten up on transparency as time goes on. When Obama was given an award for open government, it was not open to the press.
Here are Obama?s stats: 38.4% denied in 2009, 37.7% denied in 2010, 35.3% denied in 2011. In his last three years, Bush?s stats were 23.5%, 24%, and 40.6%. In 2009, the Obama administration asked Judicial Watch to praise the administration?s transparency, but then refused to hand over Secret Service logs Judicial Watch requested. The Obama administration has said that documents about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not subject to FOIA.The White House Propaganda Machine. The White House infamously put restrictions on journalists taking some videos and photos of the President, but has simultaneously released administration-produced content that is little more than propaganda. In November 2013, news organizations sent the administration a letter protesting the treatment: ?As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist's camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.?
The Obama administration?s actions, the letter stated, have ?a direct and adverse impact on the public's ability to independently monitor and see what its government is doing.? The letter asked news organizations to stop using White House produced photos. The White House banned independent photos of events including a meeting between Obama and black faith leaders and between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators and Vice President Joe Biden, as well as a meeting with Hillary Clinton. AP executive editor Kathleen Carroll stated, ?are now recorded only by photographers who work directly for the White House, resulting in images that are little more than visual press releases." The White House also prefers to use non-profit group Media Matters to distribute its spin on the news. Prosecution of Whistleblowers. The Obama administration is the leakiest administration in history. The IRS leaked information about a conservative 501(c)3?s donors; Joe Biden leaked the identity of the team responsible for killing Bin Laden; the Obama administration leaked information about Israeli national security repeatedly in order to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran, among other major leaks. But when it comes to prosecuting press members for cooperating with whistleblowers, the Obama administration?s use of the Espionage Act has been historically heavyhanded.
In 2009, the Justice Department initiated an investigation into James Rosen, after which Attorney General Eric Holder lied, ?With regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material: that is not something I?ve ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be wise policy.? Overall, the administration has used the Espionage Act six times to prosecute whistleblowers. Leonard Downie of The Washington Post wrote in October 2013, ?The war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I?ve seen since the Nixon administration.?
The Obama administration has been curtailing press freedom ? but that hasn?t ended the press? drool-cup worship for their beloved president. Despite occasional flare-ups, the relationship between the Obama White House and its press lackeys remains strong. Which is not only a testament to the tyrannical tendencies of the Obama administration, but to the cowardice of those who cover it.

Just out of curiosity, do you think things would be different had Mitt Romney won?

I think that there's always going to be backdoor politics going on no matter who is in office. But, with Romney, I don't think that we'd have the economic turmoil that we have now, and I think we'd be more respected on the world stage. With Hussein in office, the world is laughing at us.

This guy is ruining our economy, destroying military morale, but thinks it's important to focus on same sex marriage. That's shit that's only important to Azza, Vancouver and CHJ's)

We'd be just as screwed with Romney as we are with Obama. Republicans and democrats are just different sides of the same coin. The only way to change it is for a third party candidate to come in and for us to keep electing third party candidates. Right now both republicans and democrats have the monopoly on US politics. Want to improve things? Quit voting for them.

It was with the democrats and republicans that the idea of "throwing your vote away" on a third party came about. They have so many believing this that it will probably take a violent revolution to shake it up.

Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps. - Emo Phillips

We'd be just as screwed with Romney as we are with Obama. Republicans and democrats are just different sides of the same coin. The only way to change it is for a third party candidate to come in and for us to keep electing third party candidates. Right now both republicans and democrats have the monopoly on US politics. Want to improve things? Quit voting for them.

It was with the democrats and republicans that the idea of "throwing your vote away" on a third party came about. They have so many believing this that it will probably take a violent revolution to shake it up.

We'd be just as screwed with Romney as we are with Obama. Republicans and democrats are just different sides of the same coin. The only way to change it is for a third party candidate to come in and for us to keep electing third party candidates. Right now both republicans and democrats have the monopoly on US politics. Want to improve things? Quit voting for them.

It was with the democrats and republicans that the idea of "throwing your vote away" on a third party came about. They have so many believing this that it will probably take a violent revolution to shake it up.

In the past I might have called you out on this one. Present time I have to agree that a third party would stop a lot of the crying between both dominant parties...And the people need to start becoming a little louder (voicing opinions).. If that does not work well look at UK right now, what a horror....Just my 2 cents

We'd be just as screwed with Romney as we are with Obama. Republicans and democratsare just different sides of the same coin. The only way to change it is for a third party candidate to come in and for us to keep electing third party candidates. Right now both republicans and democrats have the monopoly on US politics. Want to improve things? Quit voting for them.

It was with the democrats and republicans that the idea of "throwing your vote away" on a third party came about. They have so many believing this that it will probably take a violent revolution to shake it up.

Absolutely. In politics, there's no such thing as Republican and Democrat anymore. There's only truth and propaganda! And in my honest opinion, the democrats are spewing more of it than the GOP is.